Copper's Heating/Selling Well on Ebay

33 33

Sellers with books set at sky high BIN, waiting for a fish, are defended. I agree a seller can ask whatever they want for a book, but it's not good for the hobby in my opinion.

 

Nor is pressing or micro-trimming, but that hasn't stopped anyone. Point is, it's not necessarily just a hobby to everyone.

 

I wonder at what point will pressing become frowned upon? To me it is restoration. I have several books that would be incredible if pressed but it just feels like restoration (and honestly I'm scared to take the chance and accidentally getting the book ruined).

 

Pressing IS restoration. It is, however, what is called "market acceptable" restoration, which is why, like coin dipping, it doesn't get a purple label when done properly.

 

Will there be any long term issues from pressing? (I've been told that there are chemicals involved in the process).

\

 

I don't know of anyone using chemicals to press books. It's basically just heat, pressure, and water.

 

Will this eventually have long term issues? Depends on the book and what's done to it.

 

I have nothing against pressing. Hell, I am pretty sure that some of my decent well presenting books were all pressed

 

However, after seeing

a few weeks ago I believe that cgc should start disclosing pressing - start at the 10:34 mark. You'll see the guy talking about how the waviness came back after the book was pressed. I'm not sure if this an isolated incident or not but I think it is good business to be upfront with the paying customers.

 

If you're looking on eBay, it would be classified as a Bronze Age (1970-83). It was released June '83. (Can't wait to hear how I'm wrong about this one)

 

You're not wrong, just misinformed, as virtually no one adhered to the more-recent OS change when the dealers moved up the BA date to 1984 (Secret Wars??? ), wanting to turn "worthless early-Copper" into "valuable high-grade late-Bronze" - that was *before* Copper took off and I bet they regret that stupidity now.

 

I would estimate the majority of informed, longtime collectors would select 1979-81 as the End of the Bronze Age and 1981-82 as the Start of the Copper Age.

 

There are just too many seminal books (Warrior Magazine, Love & Rockets, Marvel Graphic Novels, Pacific, etc.), events (New EiCs at Marvel/DC, creator royalties/ownership), changes (no more cartoon books, horror comics/reprint titles all cancelled, Warren/Spire/Harvey shuts down, Contest of Champions starts mini-series wave), etc. for Bronze to go too far out of 1981.

 

No, the difference here is you're still living in the 90's and using Overstreet and brick and mortar stores / dealers. If I want to sell a book on eBay, I'm going to put it in the proper year as is dictated by their system. So when buyers narrow their search by age they will find the book I am selling.

I'm not saying you're wrong for using the Overstreet guide or whatever your problem is with that, but there are a heck of a ton of sales done online these days and not in shops.

Sellers with books set at sky high BIN, waiting for a fish, are defended. I agree a seller can ask whatever they want for a book, but it's not good for the hobby in my opinion.

 

Nor is pressing or micro-trimming, but that hasn't stopped anyone. Point is, it's not necessarily just a hobby to everyone.

 

I wonder at what point will pressing become frowned upon? To me it is restoration. I have several books that would be incredible if pressed but it just feels like restoration (and honestly I'm scared to take the chance and accidentally getting the book ruined).

 

Pressing IS restoration. It is, however, what is called "market acceptable" restoration, which is why, like coin dipping, it doesn't get a purple label when done properly.

 

Will there be any long term issues from pressing? (I've been told that there are chemicals involved in the process).

\

 

I don't know of anyone using chemicals to press books. It's basically just heat, pressure, and water.

 

Will this eventually have long term issues? Depends on the book and what's done to it.

 

I have nothing against pressing. Hell, I am pretty sure that some of my decent well presenting books were all pressed

 

However, after seeing

a few weeks ago I believe that cgc should start disclosing pressing - start at the 10:34 mark. You'll see the guy talking about how the waviness came back after the book was pressed. I'm not sure if this an isolated incident or not but I think it is good business to be upfront with the paying customers.

 

This guy (these?) frequently gives out false information, and people accept it as fact, with no one to challenge them (much like here, except the opportunity to challenge is a lot easier.)

 

Example? In that video alone, this guy claimed that "Web of Spiderman #1 was one of the first appearances of the black costume."

 

Well, I guess if you count the 25th or so as "one of the first", that might be true. Web #1 appeared a full year after ASM #252. And he doesn't just mention it once...he repeats the mistake multiple times. "Then you got all four of the first appearance of the black suit." Not correct.

 

They say "He had four ongoing titles going on at the same time"...which isn't correct, and wouldn't happen until 1990. Unless you count Marvel Tales, which was a reprint title, Spidey had three ongoing titles throughout the 80's.

 

And they frequently make mistakes like this.

 

So, does paper have memory? Yes, it does. Do flaws "come back"? Yes, they do.

 

However...when pressing is done PROPERLY (that is, NOT "quick pressed" or sped through any process at all), then those defects don't come back. But it takes time, and everyone wants their books back NOW NOW NOW!!!!!

 

That's why these defects "come back." You can't stick a book in a press, squash it for a couple of minutes, and then it's done. That's not how it works.

 

And...pressing, when done correctly, is not detectable in any reliable, consistent, meaningful way, so there's no way for CGC to put "pressed" on the label. There are CLUES that a book has been pressed (staples)...but they are only clues, and certainly not conclusive in any way that anybody could tell for sure, and then put on a label.

 

 

Sellers with books set at sky high BIN, waiting for a fish, are defended. I agree a seller can ask whatever they want for a book, but it's not good for the hobby in my opinion.

 

Nor is pressing or micro-trimming, but that hasn't stopped anyone. Point is, it's not necessarily just a hobby to everyone.

 

I wonder at what point will pressing become frowned upon? To me it is restoration. I have several books that would be incredible if pressed but it just feels like restoration (and honestly I'm scared to take the chance and accidentally getting the book ruined).

 

Pressing IS restoration. It is, however, what is called "market acceptable" restoration, which is why, like coin dipping, it doesn't get a purple label when done properly.

 

Will there be any long term issues from pressing? (I've been told that there are chemicals involved in the process).

\

 

I don't know of anyone using chemicals to press books. It's basically just heat, pressure, and water.

 

Will this eventually have long term issues? Depends on the book and what's done to it.

 

I have nothing against pressing. Hell, I am pretty sure that some of my decent well presenting books were all pressed

 

However, after seeing

a few weeks ago I believe that cgc should start disclosing pressing - start at the 10:34 mark. You'll see the guy talking about how the waviness came back after the book was pressed. I'm not sure if this an isolated incident or not but I think it is good business to be upfront with the paying customers.

 

This guy (these?) frequently gives out false information, and people accept it as fact, with no one to challenge them (much like here, except the opportunity to challenge is a lot easier.)

 

Example? In that video alone, this guy claimed that "Web of Spiderman #1 was one of the first appearances of the black costume."

 

Well, I guess if you count the 25th or so as "one of the first", that might be true. Web #1 appeared a full year after ASM #252. And he doesn't just mention it once...he repeats the mistake multiple times. "Then you got all four of the first appearance of the black suit." Not correct.

 

They say "He had four ongoing titles going on at the same time"...which isn't correct, and wouldn't happen until 1990. Unless you count Marvel Tales, which was a reprint title, Spidey had three ongoing titles throughout the 80's.

 

And they frequently make mistakes like this.

 

So, does paper have memory? Yes, it does. Do flaws "come back"? Yes, they do.

 

However...when pressing is done PROPERLY (that is, NOT "quick pressed" or sped through any process at all), then those defects don't come back. But it takes time, and everyone wants their books back NOW NOW NOW!!!!!

 

That's why these defects "come back." You can't stick a book in a press, squash it for a couple of minutes, and then it's done. That's not how it works.

 

And...pressing, when done correctly, is not detectable in any reliable, consistent, meaningful way, so there's no way for CGC to put "pressed" on the label. There are CLUES that a book has been pressed (staples)...but they are only clues, and certainly not conclusive in any way that anybody could tell for sure, and then put on a label.

 

 

Given that all pressers are not as good as you (and you're only one guy) and there a lot of them out there and few new ones that are likely setting their own shop in the background and there is no 3rd party quality control verifying that a book is "pressed properly", do you agree that CGC should at least consider disclosing whether a book is pressed on their labels to the best of their abilities?

 

I'm sure CGC and their eagle eyed staff have graded enough books to tell whether they have been pressed or not - can't assume that they can't detect pressing because we don't know with 100% certainty what they actually do. I understand some pressers would submit books directly to CGC - that's a good start.

 

If I'm dropping significant sum of money for a graded comic, I'd like to know and be informed (within reason) prior to making the purchase.

Given that all pressers are not as good as you (and you're only one guy) and there a lot of them out there and few new ones that are likely setting their own shop in the background and there is no 3rd party quality control verifying that a book is "pressed properly", do you agree that CGC should at least consider disclosing whether a book is pressed on their labels to the best of their abilities?

 

No. Books should be hammered in the grade for improper pressing that is obvious. Other than that, there is no way to know with absolute consistency if a book has been pressed or not. And attempting to do that would cause CGC to lose all credibility.

 

I can set 10 books in front of the best graders CGC has, some pressed and some unpressed, (and I would be honest, and set out books that I have owned since they were printed in, say, 1991), and CGC would not be able to tell which books were pressed and which weren't.

 

I'm sure CGC and their eagle eyed staff have graded enough books to tell whether they have been pressed or not - can't assume that they can't detect pressing because we don't know with 100% certainty what they actually do. I understand some pressers would submit books directly to CGC - that's a good start.

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

 

 

 

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

 

+1

 

 

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

 

+1

 

Say the pressers . . .

 

Btw, to my knowledge, RMA doesn't press books himself, he says he submits pressed books. However fine a distinction between doing and endorsing may be.

Given that all pressers are not as good as you (and you're only one guy) and there a lot of them out there and few new ones that are likely setting their own shop in the background and there is no 3rd party quality control verifying that a book is "pressed properly", do you agree that CGC should at least consider disclosing whether a book is pressed on their labels to the best of their abilities?

 

No. Books should be hammered in the grade for improper pressing that is obvious. Other than that, there is no way to know with absolute consistency if a book has been pressed or not. And attempting to do that would cause CGC to lose all credibility.

 

I can set 10 books in front of the best graders CGC has, some pressed and some unpressed, (and I would be honest, and set out books that I have owned since they were printed in, say, 1991), and CGC would not be able to tell which books were pressed and which weren't.

 

I'm sure CGC and their eagle eyed staff have graded enough books to tell whether they have been pressed or not - can't assume that they can't detect pressing because we don't know with 100% certainty what they actually do. I understand some pressers would submit books directly to CGC - that's a good start.

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

How about CGC just rejecting books that it suspects are pressed? How's that for starters? Kind of like "overhang", or perhaps "micro-trimming" - they just send them back to the submitter. (Never happen - not a good business model).

 

 

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

 

+1

 

Say the pressers . . .

 

Btw, to my knowledge, RMA doesn't press books himself, he says he submits pressed books. However fine a distinction between doing and endorsing may be.

 

I have pressed books since 2010.

 

And yes, I am a professional presser, so some may believe my view is biased...but having pressed several thousand books at this point, I've seen enough before and after to be able to make a good determination.

 

There are clues....but they are only clues, and not anything concrete in any respect.

Given that all pressers are not as good as you (and you're only one guy) and there a lot of them out there and few new ones that are likely setting their own shop in the background and there is no 3rd party quality control verifying that a book is "pressed properly", do you agree that CGC should at least consider disclosing whether a book is pressed on their labels to the best of their abilities?

 

No. Books should be hammered in the grade for improper pressing that is obvious. Other than that, there is no way to know with absolute consistency if a book has been pressed or not. And attempting to do that would cause CGC to lose all credibility.

 

I can set 10 books in front of the best graders CGC has, some pressed and some unpressed, (and I would be honest, and set out books that I have owned since they were printed in, say, 1991), and CGC would not be able to tell which books were pressed and which weren't.

 

I'm sure CGC and their eagle eyed staff have graded enough books to tell whether they have been pressed or not - can't assume that they can't detect pressing because we don't know with 100% certainty what they actually do. I understand some pressers would submit books directly to CGC - that's a good start.

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

How about CGC just rejecting books that it suspects are pressed? How's that for starters? Kind of like "overhang", or perhaps "micro-trimming" - they just send them back to the submitter. (Never happen - not a good business model).

 

Because 1. CGC doesn't consider pressing to be a problem; 2. Good pressing is virtually indetectable; 3. A ton of books that had never seen a press ever could be "rejected."

 

It's unworkable. Trimming, even micro-trimming, takes material from the book. Overhang creates problems in the slab. Pressing only flattens out what is already there. Nothing is added to or taken away from the book (despite the "philosophical" objections that "bends" and the like were "taken away." "Bends" are not part of the basic material of any comic, except the spine.)

Wow, another pressing thread .

 

 

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

 

+1

 

Say the pressers . . .

 

Btw, to my knowledge, RMA doesn't press books himself, he says he submits pressed books. However fine a distinction between doing and endorsing may be.

 

I have pressed books since 2010.

 

And yes, I am a professional presser, so some may believe my view is biased...but having pressed several thousand books at this point, I've seen enough before and after to be able to make a good determination.

 

There are clues....but they are only clues, and not anything concrete in any respect.

 

Is there a certification process before you become a professional presser? Is there a standard, or code of ethics that you guys follow? Or you are just basing this from your personal experience?

 

Btw, everybody knows that the Edgar Church's collection is not pressed (common knowledge) - not really a good example for comparison.

 

Anyways, I expected some dismissal and push back from pressers here. I don't have anything against pressing comics. I just want to know whether the product I'm buying is of high quality or just "artificial". I think this is important to ensure the health of our hobby.

 

Thanks RMA...

Wow, another pressing thread .

 

in your opinion when does the copper age begin and end

 

 

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

 

+1

 

Say the pressers . . .

 

Btw, to my knowledge, RMA doesn't press books himself, he says he submits pressed books. However fine a distinction between doing and endorsing may be.

 

I have pressed books since 2010.

 

And yes, I am a professional presser, so some may believe my view is biased...but having pressed several thousand books at this point, I've seen enough before and after to be able to make a good determination.

 

There are clues....but they are only clues, and not anything concrete in any respect.

 

Is there a certification process before you become a professional presser? Is there a standard, or code of ethics that you guys follow? Or you are just basing this from your personal experience?

 

If someone is willing to pay you for your services, you're a professional. No certification, no standard, no code of ethics, other than the presser's own. That's why you see such a vast range of results from different pressers. There are good pressers....and there are bad pressers. There are meticulous pressers, and there are sloppy pressers. There are very few very, very good pressers, but that requires a certain temperament and mindset that not many people possess.

 

Btw, everybody knows that the Edgar Church's collection is not pressed (common knowledge) - not really a good example for comparison.

 

1. You're incorrect. Several (most?) of the Edgar Church books that are now in slabs have been pressed.

 

2. I was referring to the "natural press" that the books had from being stacked in a closet for 30-40 years. That was, indeed, a "natural press", and it allowed for several of the books to be 9.6s and 9.8s without any additional work done to them.

 

Anyways, I expected some dismissal and push back from pressers here. I don't have anything against pressing comics. I just want to know whether the product I'm buying is of high quality or just "artificial". I think this is important to ensure the health of our hobby.

 

Thanks RMA...

 

I'm not dismissing anything you've said. But what you're asking for isn't possible on any sort of legitimate scale. And, eventually, you will not encounter "unpressed" books in slabs outside of those slabbed in the early 00's. There's simply too much money involved for it to be otherwise.

 

 

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

 

+1

 

Say the pressers . . .

 

Btw, to my knowledge, RMA doesn't press books himself, he says he submits pressed books. However fine a distinction between doing and endorsing may be.

 

I have pressed books since 2010.

 

And yes, I am a professional presser, so some may believe my view is biased...but having pressed several thousand books at this point, I've seen enough before and after to be able to make a good determination.

 

There are clues....but they are only clues, and not anything concrete in any respect.

 

Is there a certification process before you become a professional presser? Is there a standard, or code of ethics that you guys follow? Or you are just basing this from your personal experience?

 

 

If someone is willing to pay you for your services, you're a professional. No certification, no standard, no code of ethics, other than the presser's own. That's why you see such a vast range of results from different pressers. There are good pressers....and there are bad pressers. There are meticulous pressers, and there are sloppy pressers. There are very few very, very good pressers, but that requires a certain temperament and mindset that not many people possess.

 

Btw, everybody knows that the Edgar Church's collection is not pressed (common knowledge) - not really a good example for comparison.

 

1. You're incorrect. Several (most?) of the Edgar Church books that are now in slabs have been pressed.

 

2. I was referring to the "natural press" that the books had from being stacked in a closet for 30-40 years. That was, indeed, a "natural press", and it allowed for several of the books to be 9.6s and 9.8s without any additional work done to them.

 

Anyways, I expected some dismissal and push back from pressers here. I don't have anything against pressing comics. I just want to know whether the product I'm buying is of high quality or just "artificial". I think this is important to ensure the health of our hobby.

 

Thanks RMA...

 

I'm not dismissing anything you've said. But what you're asking for isn't possible on any sort of legitimate scale. And, eventually, you will not encounter "unpressed" books in slabs outside of those slabbed in the early 00's. There's simply too much money involved for it to be otherwise.

 

Gotcha on the Mile High collection. I thought they were pristine copies and were not pressed - kinda disappointing to be honest

 

I can tell that you're passionate in pressing comics and you believe that you're one of the better ones if not the best out there. However, I'm not sure if you're using the word professional correctly. I hope the P.E./P.Eng's, M.Ds, etc who read your definition above did not find it offensive, because I kinda did.

 

How can you conclude that detecting a press is not possible? Was enough effort exhausted to scientifically support this?

 

My last question: If in the next two to five years, CGC has found a way to detect with high level of accuracy (within reason of course) pressing jobs on comics and decided to start labelling slabs accordingly or assigning a distinct colour on the label, would you be okay with this? Or worried of the stigma that this may cause?

 

The above hypothetical is pointless to ask or answer since it would never happen

Wow, another pressing thread .

 

in your opinion when does the copper age begin and end

1980 to 1993

Wow, another pressing thread .

 

in your opinion when does the copper age begin and end

 

Copper begins shortly after the Bronze Age ends, and the Psuedo-Nickel age

begins.

I kinda see Silver ending in the late 60's, Bronze ending in the early 80's,

the Copper ending in the early 90's, and to top it off, the Psuedo-Nickel age

ended about shortly after the turn of the century when the movie and tv

folks began to pay attention to comics. After that, I'm not so OCD

to argue about specific dates, issue numbers, color codes, what shop

was open, who the distributor was, types of paper, size of the issue,

how his Lordship Bob Overstreet passes gas, etc etc. It's a general

feel to things to me. Love to watch folks argue over the 15 cent issues.

Are they Silver or Bronze ? I personally don't care.

Given that all pressers are not as good as you (and you're only one guy) and there a lot of them out there and few new ones that are likely setting their own shop in the background and there is no 3rd party quality control verifying that a book is "pressed properly", do you agree that CGC should at least consider disclosing whether a book is pressed on their labels to the best of their abilities?

 

No. Books should be hammered in the grade for improper pressing that is obvious. Other than that, there is no way to know with absolute consistency if a book has been pressed or not. And attempting to do that would cause CGC to lose all credibility.

 

I can set 10 books in front of the best graders CGC has, some pressed and some unpressed, (and I would be honest, and set out books that I have owned since they were printed in, say, 1991), and CGC would not be able to tell which books were pressed and which weren't.

 

I'm sure CGC and their eagle eyed staff have graded enough books to tell whether they have been pressed or not - can't assume that they can't detect pressing because we don't know with 100% certainty what they actually do. I understand some pressers would submit books directly to CGC - that's a good start.

 

I submit books that are pressed to CGC, and I submit books that aren't pressed. Pressing is not detectable with any...and I mean ANY...degree of consistency. You're essentially asking CGC to look for what isn't there. And, since natural processes can often mimic "artificial" pressing (See: Edgar Church collection), there's simply no way to reliably tell.

 

You're asking for something that simply isn't possible.

 

How about CGC just rejecting books that it suspects are pressed? How's that for starters? Kind of like "overhang", or perhaps "micro-trimming" - they just send them back to the submitter. (Never happen - not a good business model).

 

Because 1. CGC doesn't consider pressing to be a problem; 2. Good pressing is virtually indetectable; 3. A ton of books that had never seen a press ever could be "rejected."

 

It's unworkable. Trimming, even micro-trimming, takes material from the book. Overhang creates problems in the slab. Pressing only flattens out what is already there. Nothing is added to or taken away from the book (despite the "philosophical" objections that "bends" and the like were "taken away." "Bends" are not part of the basic material of any comic, except the spine.)

 

I think this pretty much sums it up, thanks RMA.

Gotcha on the Mile High collection. I thought they were pristine copies and were not pressed - kinda disappointing to be honest

 

What would lead you to believe that? While I suspect the Church collection certainly has more books that are NOT pressed than the average pedigree, it's certainly not true that every Church book has been untouched by pressing. I've never pressed a Church book, but I *have* pressed other pedigrees, and gotten some stellar results.

 

I can tell that you're passionate in pressing comics and you believe that you're one of the better ones if not the best out there.

 

Susan Cicconi, who doesn't press (by itself) anymore, and Matt Nelson (when he does the work himself) are the best pressers in the business. Am I one of the better ones? I just let my results speak for me.

 

However, I'm not sure if you're using the word professional correctly. I hope the P.E./P.Eng's, M.Ds, etc who read your definition above did not find it offensive, because I kinda did.

 

Why would you be offended at a comment that has nothing to do with you personally? You essentially said I didn't know what I was talking about a few posts back (You said "everyone knew" that the Church collection "wasn't pressed (common knowledge)"), and you didn't even understand what I was referring to (that is, the stacks Church himself put in the closet as a natural "press" job)...I didn't take offense to that, and it was aimed squarely at me.

 

A professional is someone who earns a living from a specific activity. "Certification", while certainly nice, is not only not necessary, it's not possible in this field.

 

How can you conclude that detecting a press is not possible?

 

I didn't say detecting *A* press is not possible. I said detecting press jobs reliably and consistently isn't possible. A (single) press job, especially on a poorly pressed book, can be fairly easy to determine. Good press jobs, however, are not, especially across multiple books. And that is precisely the problem.

 

Was enough effort exhausted to scientifically support this?

 

My last question: If in the next two to five years, CGC has found a way to detect with high level of accuracy (within reason of course) pressing jobs on comics and decided to start labelling slabs accordingly or assigning a distinct colour on the label, would you be okay with this? Or worried of the stigma that this may cause?

 

It isn't possible, so it's not going to happen. Have you ever pressed comics? Have you ever had comics pressed? Are you familiar with the process, and what is done? I suspect, from the conversation, you are not.

 

You're talking to a presser who, unlike most pressers, will discuss this openly and honestly. You're talking to someone who agrees that, yes, pressing IS restoration...it's just market acceptable restoration, and doesn't need to be in the same category as additive or subtractive restoration, like color touch, tear seals, trimming, pieces added, and the like. Clearly, based on my record here at the CGC boards, "stigma" is one of the last things I worry about.

 

If you could tell with ABSOLUTE (not just a "high level" of) accuracy that a book has been pressed...and not just put in a bag and board, sat in a stack for 40 years, put under dictionaries, or a cinder block, or whatever...then yes, I would have zero problem with that being on the label.

 

But you cannot, because pressing isn't an additive or subtractive form of restoration, and you can have a book that mimics a very good press job (See: Edgar Church collection once more), that never saw a dry mount press.

 

And because of that, what you're suggesting will never, ever happen, nor should it.